How about we start disrupting oil HQs and distribution centers? I feel like clogging supply chains will get more attention than destroying art.
this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2023
93 points (97.9% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
6789 readers
450 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
How about we start disrupting oil HQs and distribution centers?
It's a bit late to start it:
Just Stop Oil protests: Terminal operations suspended and arrests made
And - although I have not been involved with JSO, I was locking on to fuel stations a couple of decades ago, with Greenpeace.
So far that hasn't done the trick though.
It just seems the art approach makes them look bad. Maybe its time to take a jackhammer to major freeways instead. Dunno if thats better but at least its not completely out of the blue like damaging art.
Maybe its time to take a jackhammer to major freeways instead.
Reclaim the streets did that on the Westway in London at a demo that I was at back in the '90s. They hid all the gear under gigantic carnival costumes and planted trees in the holes. You couldn't hear the jackhammers due to the sound system.
It was a great party - and it wasn't the only time - but that didn't work either.
I see how we arrived where we are then. Thank you. Though it is rather disheartening. There is a way somewhere.
Just Stop Oil does that too, but that's not getting media attention. Hence this.
Yeah theres a whole chain down here that explains the history. Sad to say the least.
These are essentially publicity stunts, right? They don't think destroying art will decrease carbon emissions somehow?
Those actions show very clearly that our society cares about damage to paintings more than the destruction of the planet.
That's what they're supposed to show.
Best comment so far. Very well said.
I don't necessarily agree that that is what's displayed here. People care about the environment they do but that's not the same as saying we don't want people slashing paintings for no reason we can have both.
It's a completely ridiculous statement to suggest that you can only have one or the other and that in order to save the planet we have to destroy artwork.
OK, but there's a big difference in the reaction of the people.
They react with anger and "this needs to be stopped, punish those responsible harshly" to slashing paintings, and with resignation or indifference to the actions that destroy the planet. "Oh well, nothing we can do"
Then maybe a better way to think about it for you would be like this:
Why should we have nice things when we haven't even done the basics? if you give yior kid dessert before dinner, they probably aren't even gonna eat their dinner - people are mammals were naturally lazy.
So what can we do to help it? Not have nice things until were not actively killing ourselves
load more comments
(2 replies)
It is very clearly about publicity. You can't get any message across unless you get someone's attention in the first place.
In this case, they are playing on the link back to the suffragettes.
Seems to me like they're getting a net negative message across since they're seen more as nuts. But I hope someone there has done the sociology analysis to see if it's actually a net positive or negative impact on their cause.
There have been studies on this kind of thing. I don't have the links to hand, but the upshot from the ones that I have seen IIRC is that it doesn't generally cause many people to actually change their views from positive to negative or vice versa, but it does keep the issue in the news.
Of course, in the wider perspective, no protests of this kind are ever going to work alone, but then that's not the idea. They are never going to be happening alone either: there are always going to legal challenges, political movements, consumer pressure, boycotts and so on and so on alongside. The question is, which ones drive which others? Which wouldn't happen without the others?
I would do anything to stop the climate catastrophe at this point. Good for them.
But if what they're doing has a net negative perception to the cause, they're hurting our chances of minimizing global warming, not helping it.
Anyone who doesn’t see how bad climate change is at this point is a fool
For real. Willful ignorance is one thing on its own but when the consequence of it is this catastrophic I'm not sure what to even call it.
I recently had a conversation with a rural gentleman who said "we sure seem to be having some crazy weather lately" but calls climate change a liberal hoax. This conversation took place on the bank of a river that had just experienced something worse than a 1000 year flood. There had been 6 more houses within a stones throw of us less than a week ago. Now they were somewhere downstream along with the very ground on which their foundations had rested.
This man is living the consequences of climate change more than most and yet he still refuses to see the problem for what it is. I have no idea what to call that other than lunacy.
Which is not the point that poster is trying to make.
They’re basically asking “is this message effective or is it having a negative impact on the overall goal to the cause?” Whether people (jfc can’t believe I’m about to say this) don’t believe in climate change or not is a completely different conversation than the one being had here, which is talking about whether this group is doing good or not. I would say it’s overall helping because any attention is actually good attention if you’re smart enough to capitalize on it and present an argument or statement in an attempt to change people’s minds.
Can you try contributing instead of being a Redditor and saying general and slightly on-topic shit for some sick upvotes?
load more comments
(4 replies)
But the world is full of a whole lot of fools, and we still need to convince at least some of them.
And that has what to do with destroying art? Fuck those people, they deserve no beauty in their lives, and neither do you if you stand with them.
We are in a net negative situation.
Wdym? An action like this will either help or hurt their cause in aggregate.
As far as I can tell they don't have a cohesive goal. In theory yeah they are publicity stunts, but so what? No one really disagrees with them. Most members of the public do agree that climate change is a problem, the issue is corporations and governments.
That’s unfair. Our well paid leaders don’t have a cohesive plan. Let’s hold them to that standard and not the protesters who are actually worried about the future.
No art was harmed in the making of this
There's always a risk, art is very delicate.
Honestly the artists would be on their side
Clairvoyant are you?
Correct
load more comments
(17 replies)
I dont understand these people. If you have a problem you dont solve it by wrecking art. You have to go straight to the politicians. Stage a protest in front of the capital or something. You have to be more agressive and direct.
view more: next ›